This template looks like an inferior version of {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat}}. Can we either duplicate the better text here or set up a redirect? Can someone unprotect this, at the very least? --Fastfission 13:34, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I've added the text to this template and changed {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat}} to point to this one. I don't see why this template is protected in the first place, but I'd suggest opening a discussion on WP:RFPP with regards to getting it unprotected because I have very controversial views on page protection (-: . JYolkowski // talk 23:23, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I requested it to be unprotected. I'd like to play with it a little bit. --Fastfission 19:14, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I've commented out the "please check etc" stuff as 1) It's purpose was unclear 2) It was trashing the Image licence etc information 3) What is the point of having a "Please check" tag that cannot be removed once such such checks have been carried out?

First: Please look at such edits twice. You've destroyed several image description pages (these |} are needed). Second: everyone could write down everything in this license tag, so it's not like with other ones which are f.e. public domain if {{PD}} is used. Every person who wants to use these images has to check if the license allows that, without any automatism. --Saperaud 22:32, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Is it your assertion that the amendments to this template are directed at ensuring people read the licence? If so then what is the point of a tag that trashes that licence information? What also is the point of the please check and list for deletion stuff if they cant be removed after such checks have been made? In my opinion, your explanation makes no sense.

I have reverted this template to the version as of 23:18, 14 September 2005. The reason is that the changes made after that date trashed the licence information. I checked the top 37 images in the "what links here" list, and of these, 28 or 75% had had their licence information trashed (see list below those marked with a T had their licence info trashed). Despite requests, those reponsible for this have so far chosen not to offer any explanation for the changes that were made. --Sf 12:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I've reverted the redirect from {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat}} as this was trashing the licence information for images using that template (19 trashed out of 20 checked). --Sf 14:18, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The words "the original image author and image description are credited" are superfluous here and should be removed or at least made the default text if a condition isn't given. Peter O. (Talk) 04:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

This template needs to include a mention of the fact that licensing terms must allow derivative works; otherwise the image is not considered free under Wikipedia criteria. Here's the note at the top of Template:CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat:

NOTE: The following conditions must not include terms which restrict usage to educational or not-for-profit purposes or prohibit derivatives. Please list this image for deletion if they do.

I've disabled the editprotected tag. I don't see consensus on the page provided (Template talk:CopyrightedFreeUseProvidedThat). Additionally, if the desire is to have the two pages be identical, why not merge them? It seems like there are more issues to be resolved... Cheers. --MZMcBride 21:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The way the templates use parameters make it tricky to merge the templates. Anyway the ability to make derivatives is a basic requirement for something to be considered a free license, so I have added it to the note. Also included a long-winded explanation of the basic licenseing requirements on Wikipedia in a hidden structure that can be expanded on demand in case people need more details. --Sherool(talk) 00:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)